My Cannondale sv700FR (IT'S AN OUTRAGE)new pics page 8
- Thread starter Enid_Puceflange
- Start date
scant":1iyux9cf said:just curious.. so according to the defenders of "98 is retro".. whats the latest date "retro" can be viewed as?
<pulls up a chair> ...
If your bike came with v-brakes or discs, it was not retro.
ameybrook":3d42ko3p said:scant":3d42ko3p said:just curious.. so according to the defenders of "98 is retro".. whats the latest date "retro" can be viewed as?
<pulls up a chair> ...
If your bike came with v-brakes or discs, it was not retro.
owners of fisher RS1s & 91 san andreas with pro stop discs everywhere are crying now ....
- Feedback
- View
Crying???
Im sitting in the corner of the room drinking bleach !! :cry:
LOL
GC
Im sitting in the corner of the room drinking bleach !! :cry:
LOL
GC
dirtjumper_dmr
Senior Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
P20
Retrobike Rider
I think part of the problem is the bike look futuristic for its time. Retro seems to be a style rather than an age thing. The retro inspired Groovy for example, recieved praise and didn't it enter BOTM? My Bonty modified with discs...
I'm NOT trying to stir things up, just trying to explain....
I'm NOT trying to stir things up, just trying to explain....
cherrybomb
Old School Grand Master
- Feedback
- View
P20":1rtt3879 said:I think part of the problem is the bike look futuristic for its time. Retro seems to be a style rather than an age thing. The retro inspired Groovy for example, received praise and didn't it enter BOTM? My Bonty modified with discs...
I'm NOT trying to stir things up, just trying to explain....
I'm with you.
The Cannondale Super V's were available in 1993, so as a design they're iconic and for a full suspension frame deffo retro, but as a bike design? ....then I'm not so sure.
However, defining retro as purely age related is never going to work either. There are some classic frames that were produced all through the 90's (the Yo Eddie springs to mind along with the Clockwork, Zaskar and Pace to name just a few).
The issue here is what the majority (and founding members of the site more often then not) feel is retro. If you look at the bikes I listed, we all have prejudices (there's no full sus bikes in my list). It would seem that there are a lot of folks here that think a bike has to have certain features to be considered 'retro' whether that be canti brakes, a hand built steel frame or be from a certain list of makers.
I'm not going to say I agree with it all, but there has to be some way of making the distinction I guess and wherever the line is drawn some people are going to be put out.
In this case I'm not sure I support the decision that has been made, but I can't think of a better way and no one else has come up with one no any of the numerous occasions this has been discussed before.
Maybe a more satisfactory method of defining 'retro' will be agreed on at some point in the future when we've discussed it another hundred times.
Good to have a little intelligent debate on this thread rather than just people posting up stuff like
Anyhow over the last few weeks myself and the other mods have made a bit of effort to try and keep things a little more 'retro' in the retro chat section and readers bikes. I think most will appreciate this, both had become a little generic. If you want to see newer bikes or discuss newer stuff there is the general chat forum here OR one of the hundreds of other generic cycling forums. Being a retro dedicated site is what keeps us different.
Unfortunately this means we have to make a judgement on what counts as retro. As this thread shows this is tricky at best.
The oft touted '10 year' rule is clearly rubbish and not something myself, the other mods or many others would go by. Just think is 12 1/2 months time an older one one inbred will be 10 years old and by the '10 year' rule retro. If you think an inbred is ever going to be retro you should really really ask yourself the question what in the name of god you are doing on this board.
Anyhow, I digress slightly. The judgement is tricky and there are quite a few bikes from the late 90s which some would consider retro and some not. Sometimes bikes or threads are moved to general chat, people shouldn't take this as a personal attack.
Back to this specific bike. More than aware the super v is an older design. Just didn't feel this 99 super v with the proper bo triple clamps etc was retro. My call, my judgement, I stand by it. Ironically there is an older, nicer super v in readers bikes which is far cleaner, far more orignal and far more interesting than this "student smack head special" (owners words, not mine). This bike has two pages of discussion, this one four. Wonder why? Some people have entered into a worthwhile debate on this thread (which is great), some other I can't help but feel just want to argue for the sake of it...
yeah, that's proper bostin' mate
Anyhow over the last few weeks myself and the other mods have made a bit of effort to try and keep things a little more 'retro' in the retro chat section and readers bikes. I think most will appreciate this, both had become a little generic. If you want to see newer bikes or discuss newer stuff there is the general chat forum here OR one of the hundreds of other generic cycling forums. Being a retro dedicated site is what keeps us different.
Unfortunately this means we have to make a judgement on what counts as retro. As this thread shows this is tricky at best.
The oft touted '10 year' rule is clearly rubbish and not something myself, the other mods or many others would go by. Just think is 12 1/2 months time an older one one inbred will be 10 years old and by the '10 year' rule retro. If you think an inbred is ever going to be retro you should really really ask yourself the question what in the name of god you are doing on this board.
Anyhow, I digress slightly. The judgement is tricky and there are quite a few bikes from the late 90s which some would consider retro and some not. Sometimes bikes or threads are moved to general chat, people shouldn't take this as a personal attack.
Back to this specific bike. More than aware the super v is an older design. Just didn't feel this 99 super v with the proper bo triple clamps etc was retro. My call, my judgement, I stand by it. Ironically there is an older, nicer super v in readers bikes which is far cleaner, far more orignal and far more interesting than this "student smack head special" (owners words, not mine). This bike has two pages of discussion, this one four. Wonder why? Some people have entered into a worthwhile debate on this thread (which is great), some other I can't help but feel just want to argue for the sake of it...
the way I see it is frequently wrong, but hey this is just the way I see it.
theres a time line of production years when parts & frames began to noticeably change. elastomer filled judys became replaced with marzoke z2s. cnc brake levers that cost £180 & didnt work that well werent being built anymore. tioga disc drives ceased production as did a lot of "gimmicky products". the massive expansion of companies & ridiculous price tags attached to cnc trinkets began to ease up & more reliable, sensibly priced, but less outrageous products were now being produced. obviously everyones got their personal take on what works well & what doesnt (financially crippling for me at the time unfortunately as I broke more than most..) but that move in trends for me signified the end of "retro" & the start of "modern".
V brakes would be another good example, relatively cheap & fairly powerful, people were junking there mega expensive cantis for cheaper more reliable brakes.
so my personal time line of retro to modern change is 96-98. (IE after 96 is modern)
I guess the reason theres so little agreement is that everyone started MTB at different points in time. if you started in 85, 98 is going to feel modern. if you started in 92, then 98 might feel retro.
I sold a Giant AT1 DH frame a few months ago. apparently they're really in demand now by the retro DH crew! I remember watching rob warner win the 98 national champs at nannerch like it was yesterday!
I MUST be getting more tolerant in my old age.. you want to call your 98 cannondale retro, you go right ahead
theres a time line of production years when parts & frames began to noticeably change. elastomer filled judys became replaced with marzoke z2s. cnc brake levers that cost £180 & didnt work that well werent being built anymore. tioga disc drives ceased production as did a lot of "gimmicky products". the massive expansion of companies & ridiculous price tags attached to cnc trinkets began to ease up & more reliable, sensibly priced, but less outrageous products were now being produced. obviously everyones got their personal take on what works well & what doesnt (financially crippling for me at the time unfortunately as I broke more than most..) but that move in trends for me signified the end of "retro" & the start of "modern".
V brakes would be another good example, relatively cheap & fairly powerful, people were junking there mega expensive cantis for cheaper more reliable brakes.
so my personal time line of retro to modern change is 96-98. (IE after 96 is modern)
I guess the reason theres so little agreement is that everyone started MTB at different points in time. if you started in 85, 98 is going to feel modern. if you started in 92, then 98 might feel retro.
I sold a Giant AT1 DH frame a few months ago. apparently they're really in demand now by the retro DH crew! I remember watching rob warner win the 98 national champs at nannerch like it was yesterday!
I MUST be getting more tolerant in my old age.. you want to call your 98 cannondale retro, you go right ahead
